Next-gen Linux-powered rifle is accurate up to a mile

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Two years ago, TrackingPoint made a major stir at CES with its Precision-Guided Firearm, or “Linux gun.” The weapon integrated a smart scope that displayed weather conditions, wind speeds, and other target information, and only fired the gun when the crosshairs were lined up properly on the target. Fast-forward to today, and the company has unveiled another milestone. It’s new Mile Maker is a custom weapon that’s capable of firing a round up to 1800 yards at a target moving at up to 30 miles per hour.

The new Mile Maker is chambered with a round TrackingPoint calls 338TP; reports state that this is similar to the .338 Lapua Magnum round, but with slightly different attributes. Given that the .338 LM has dual-purpose anti-personnel/anti-materiel capabilities, it’s possible that the company has redesigned the round more for hunting and less for penetrating vehicle armor. This new technology is debuting after the most recent demo, earlier this year, of a video screen attachment that allowed hunters to aim without actually looking at what they’re firing at.

The Mile Maker’s 1800-yard range is 50% farther than the 1200 yard maximum on previous rifles and it comes courtesy of both new hardware and more advanced software. TrackingPoint isn’t talking about precisely how its tweaked the software guidance on the scope, but the company is adding various social media capabilities to its platform. In 2015, TrackingPoint rifles will be able live-stream the video to a nearby smartphone or tablet in addition to the already existing option to upload video to YouTube or Facebook.

The company is also building a new set of rifles at lower price points and lighter weights, chambered with smaller ammunition. Currently, the price tags on these weapons have kept them out of the hands of most users, even the cheapest model is currently $8000, and that’s for an AR-15 with a scope that’s calibrated out to 600 yards and the ability to hit a target moving at up to ten miles an hour.

More range, more controversy

The technology behind TrackingPoint’s scope and accuracy continues to impress. The company claims significantly better accuracy than what conventional scopes are capable of achieving, under ideal conditions. The ability to share footage and takedowns will strike some as improper, but it’s likely to be well received by the firearm’s target market.

This graph is from the rifle’s initial debut, but it shows the increased accuracy offered at range

Some will argue that by making sniping easier and giving the scope an increased ability to track moving targets, TrackingPoint is creating an objectively more dangerous weapon. By lowering the skill required to properly operated the gun, TrackingPoint may also be indirectly contributing to the possibility of it being used improperly. Price, alone, won’t be a barrier forever. Already, the cost of the lowest-end models has fallen to $8000, down from $17,000 at initial introduction.

As with 3D-printed firearms, there are valid concerns and questions about how shifting technological capabilities alter potential requirements for owning, using, or manufacturing a firearm for one’s own personal use. In an odd way, TrackingPoint’s scopes are actually a marvelous metaphor for the rise of Big Data. In the old days, a hunter “interfaced” with a scope with a single fixed purpose and capability. Now, an incredibly sophisticated piece of technology gathers a great deal of external information that’s ultimately personal to each individual user and, based on that data, makes decisions about when to fire the weapon. Targeting, it this sense, can occur in multiple contexts.

Tagged In

“TrackingPoint may also be indirectly contributing to the possibility of it being used improperly”

Every article about this seems to avoid saying it so I’ll say it. This weapon just made it easy for criminals, serial killers, mass shooting, terrorism, etc..

One can set this weapon up ahead of time so it can do its deed without the person being close to it. Snipers used to risk being found or escape routes being blocked. This just solved their biggest problems.

Not to this extent. The rifle is now at a level of accuracy and range that is near par with expert snipers for $8000. With just off the shelf technology, anyone with enough technical abilities can rig this thing so they can control it half way around the world.

Think about it. Somebody can easily fly in, set this up, and fly away to a safe location in another country.

DrkNite72

And that’s what we are afraid of?
We are afraid that some one may “drone” the rifle?
The cost in prohibitive to most people the $8000 is for the AR-15 version you have to pay $18k for the one that can reach out an touch someone.
Should we blame the car manufactures or ban cars because as you mentioned in another post Mythbusters showed you how to “drone” ( an I hate that word, but it seem to be the buzz word for remote control these days ) the car you just stole and drove though a shopping mall remotely?
There are many reasons why more that one or at the most 2 shots would become impractical when trying to “drone” the rifle, recoil, narrow band of vision, transmission lag and actuator lag to move to center on the tagged target, reloading and so on.
To use the Mythbusters analogy look how hard it is for them to keep a car running in a straight line and think how much harder it is on the micro scale of movement needed to shoot a gun.

Transmission lag does not matter because the computer makes the decision to shoot when it’s on target. The targeting system is spot on. All you have to do is build a robot for basic movements.

Autonomous cars can drive better than people without errors.

I don’t know why you think people have to manually aim on a screen with aim. It is more like playing COD with full auto aim bots and the computer determine when you pull the trigger. You only need to mark the target.

DrkNite72

“Autonomous cars can drive better than people without
errors.” – ok point, but look at the number of years, the expense and the
million on millions of lines of code to get to this point and look at all the
failures.

So let’s put it all in perspective shall we.

So what is the point of this automated firing platform? Mass murder? bit of a
expensive way to do it in both time, money and resources as I’ll point out
below, or Single Assassination? probably cheaper and easier to hire a patsy but
we will assume assassination is the goal.

From you comment above it should be fully automated correct.

So we have to create a mount for the rifle that can move accurately and
smoothly, we have to actuate it, we have to write software to control said
actuators while having the controller interpret images coming from a camera
looking down the scope or pull the images from the shooting glasses so you
would have to hack those to get the feed, the video to the app for the smart
phone is not real time.

So we have built all this and all the code to make it work
we still have to tag the target which mean a real time operator moving the
system, oh sure we could hack the scope software but at that point and with all
the above work we may as well have created our own setup.

We know where the target is, setup cheap Weather underground
weather stations on the target path to get wind speed and direction data, use the
same mount and actuators as above, use a good standard glass optic with HD
camera attached. Create your own program to crunch this data and produce a ballistic
solution and feed to changes to the mount, heck go all out and have the software
feed from multiple camera’s and do facial recognition too so it can pick the
target.

A lot of work either way just to get that shot, can what you
are saying be done, yes it can, I never said it couldn’t it’s just not as
simple as you think.

It’s also cost prohibitive for most nut bags out there, this
would be more a state sanction system and it’s probably cheaper for a nation
state to have boots on the ground.

Sorry didn’t realize my reply was that long but to round off
watch the videos on the website and read the info about the system, a good
sniper can out shoot the system ( see Corporal Craig Harrison or Gunny Carlos
Hathcock )

Bro, read up on what the weapon can do before you post this nonsense. It will spit out the image live for you and/or throw it on youtube if you want lol. It can track the target for you too.

Smooth operating actuators and motors are literally cheap off the shelf parts. There’s already software to control them created by hobbyists, you just need to adjust them to your needs.

The hardest part was accuracy, tracking and distance. That’s something most people can’t do. Now it is available for dirt cheap. Even if this thing is $30k, it’s still not cost prohibitive. If I asked you how much you would pay to get away with murder, you’ll probably name a much higher price than that as most people would.

JD

These weapons are serialized and purchase has to go through the same checks as any firearm purchase so there is paperwork with your information on it along with the serial number.

Once you’ve fired the weapon the authorities will recover it and track the serial number. You stand a higher chance of being caught by leaving this fancy setup behind than you do pulling the trigger yourself and trying to E&E.

Guest

“These weapons are serialized and purchase has to go through the same checks as any firearm purchase”

lol you’re talking like nobody has ever got around this before. Most murders by firearms are unsolved because it’s nearly impossible to track. Only idiots get caught. Obviously, the serialized method does not work as well as you want to think.

There is a huge difference between common firearms some that have been through many hands before they are used to commit a crime than a specialty weapon that costs $20,000 dollars.

It’s not hard to make a $500 handgun disappear not so much this rifle.
Also I’m not sure that you typed what you meant to say because most murders by firearms are in fact solved. Did you mean that most unsolved murders by firearms were because they were impossible to track? Also in a great majority of those cases I’m willing to bet that no firearm was recovered and all they have is the bullet and maybe the shell casing.

“Also I’m not sure that you typed what you meant to say because most murders by firearms are in fact solved”

I checked the link above and it is for homicides , negligent manslaughter and murders. Murder clear rates are much lower and it’s a smaller category.

Clear rates does not mean solved. Notice the police department intentionally use unsolved and clear instead of solve. A case being cleared means that they hit all the check boxes. For example, if witnesses are cooperative and they cannot move forward then it’s cleared. If they gathered evidence to make a case and the DA threw it out, then it’s cleared. Clear also means nothing about conviction rate in court. It’s extremely hard to send someone to prison for murder since it has to be “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Dead bodies pretty much show up every day. The chances of finding a dead body after it was hidden for years is pretty slim. The PDs statistics only involve murders that made it to them and categorize as murders.The FBI would randomly audit PDs and find their data to be misleading all the time especially big cities like Chicago and NYC. In fact, the 2012 murder clear rate for Chicago is 25%. 9% of those is exceptionally cleared which pretty much means they hit a dead end and just closed the case. Why do the police make misleading claims about clear rate? because both the PDs and the individual officers themselves performance ratings are based on it. Yep, it’s because of money.

So if you analyze the data and take into account the other factors, then you can conclude that most murders are not solved. Even if it’s solved, it doesn’t have a good chance at winning in court either. That’s where it matters.

actionjksn

If I remember correctly, and I probably do. Around 60% of murders are solved so that is in fact a majority. Most of the murders that are not solved are the ones committed on people who are “nobodies”. Something like this would be used on important people and massive resources are used to solve those types of murders.

If somebody trained with $8000 worth of 338 Lapua ammo and a bolt action rifle, it would still be cheaper than buying the 338 version of this and they would have excellent capability’s and would be able to get a weapon that’s much harder to track.

All highly accurate sniper rifles are bolt action and have to have the next round manually chambered. And they all have a very high rate of recoil, they kick like a mule in order to propel a 200 grain bullet at around 3300 feet per second or a 250 grain projectile at around 3000 fps. If the weapon were sitting on a tripod and was fired once, it would be thrown way off position for a second shot without somebody pushing the stock against their shoulder.

There are some sniper rifles that are semi auto and they are always far less accurate that their bolt action counterparts. They tend to fill the role of designated marksmen rifles rather than full blown precision sniper rifles. A bolt action sniper rifle has massive lugs to tightly hold the bolt in place so it doesn’t move when the 60,000 PSI cartridge goes off. This is one of the main factors that determines the accuracy of a rifle. A semi auto rifle on the other hand relies on the bolt slamming back hard to chamber another round and eject the spent cartridge. They are all inherently less accurate than a good old fashioned bolt action.

What you’re proposing would require a semi auto rifle, and it would have to be solidly mounted on something that doesn’t move. Not just sitting on a tripod. I’m equally a computer and firearms enthusiast and I know what I’m talking about. This will never be a high production weapon that the average person can acquire and if it’s used on a high value target, they will find out who bought it if it’s left behind from being used remotely. Quick. If somebody with a fairly high level of resources makes a serious commitment to assassinate somebody, they will most likely succeed. Their problem is that if it is a high value target that requires a lot of resources. Then the people who try to catch them will have even more resources to throw at catching them.. That’s why we don’t see a lot more assassinations than we do, because they know they will stir up a $ hit storm that will not soon go away.

MBRAVARD460

lol gun laws are for gov too control its people. fact.

h4rm0ny

>>“So we have to create a mount for the rifle that can move accurately and smoothly, we have to actuate it, we have to write software to control said actuators while having the controller interpret images coming from a camera looking down the scope or pull the images from the shooting glasses so you would have to hack those to get the feed, the video to the app for the smart phone is not real time.”

Well no, we don’t. Someone has to. Once. And then you can copy their app or their design (which will have been built with standard parts). And if you think no-one will or it will all be secret, I suggest you look at the gun-enthusiast community. Your argument could equally be applied to 3D printed guns and people are sharing designs and making those.

And who cares if a world-class sniper can outshoot this (whether or not that is true)? All that matters is that this is “good enough.”

h4rm0ny

>>“The cost in prohibitive to most people the $8000 is for the AR-15 version you have to pay $18k for the one that can reach out an touch someone”

Median income in the USA is around $60,000 off the top of my head. $18k is perfectly within the reach of a very section of the USA and much of the rest could obtain the credit to cover the shortfall. Or perhaps you think only poor people are dangerous. At any rate, relying on ‘people can’t afford $18,000’ to keep down killings is pretty unwise if you ask me.

>>“Should we blame the car manufactures or ban cars because […] the car you just stole and drove though a shopping mall remotely?”

Well cars, including self-driving ones, have a purpose other than killing things. So bad analogy is bad (as car analogies often are).

Jason Hall

Terrorists generally aren’t constrained by budgets.

zuz

lol you think it’s just pop that scope on rifle and she will shoot in target up to mile ?? LOL

“atheism really? I’m always amused by atheists who promote their religion as some form of advancement.”

WTF? Atheism is not a religion. It is an advancement because Atheists generally believe in common sense, education, knowledge, and science instead of fairy tales and loose interpretation of 20,384 revisions of the same book written by unknown authors. If you even bother to look at statistics. Nations with high atheist populations tends to have 0 war while heavily religious nations are in constant wars.

“the only reason that full scale war has fallen out of fashion is the power of the atom. If it weren’t for that, we’d be going full bore.”

First, you’re completely wrong. The I’m assuming you mean Atomic bombs? Well, you might want to look up thermonuclear or better known as Hydrogen bombs .

Second, the main reason full scale war fell out of fashion is because of economic globalization, or international dependence on resources and economic wealth. Since the creation of the modern monetary system, every country that adapted the new economic policy have 0 military conflicts with each other. Look at the contrast between North and South Korea. Look at China today. Even Russia until they recently closed their economy to the world.

It’s also out of fashion because the US would crush them in conventional warfare. No other country can afford anywhere near the military. They can only surpass by numbers of personnel. FYI, all those countries did go full bore but they always lose pretty much instantly since the US have better equipment and 100% air superiority.

RBH

You’re answer contains the truth of the matter although not directly. Because the US has been and continues to be so dominant and the principles it espouses are broadly more egalitarian than previous major players on the world scene, it encourages other countries to play ball in trade and diplomacy rather than try military resolutions. Make no mistake, despite all of its faults, if the US was not so capable the world would be a less peaceful place. (Which is not to say the US is a peace loving utopia.)

Every 1st world country knows their prosperity depended on their economy. When it is so intertwined globally, they are forced to make diplomatic or political decisions, not military movement. China will never start a military campaign against the US because half their economy will crumble overnight and vice versa.

I did not say Atheism is the main reason why there’s no conflict. I said it is an advancement towards peace. It is a result of a more educated population. In turn, it is also a contributing factor towards less conflict. But basically, Atheism is a good indicator statistically.

You can nitpick what I say but I’m 100% sure you understand my point. I’m not perfect.

Vvn

You are the only person making any sense here and everyone else is getting upvoted.

Because most people are offended by atheism. When you attack their bible, they stop making any sense at all.

Mojo

I don’t find it to be offensive in the least. I think it’s foolish, to be sure, but by no means offensive.

MrKamikaze

Secular humanism in the for of Atheism where mankind only answers to himself has contributed to more death and suffering than any religious belief remember communism? i do.

Mojo

Atheism is indeed a faith. It’s a set of beliefs that aren’t backed by any facts. A lot of atheists don’t realize just how religious they actually are.

Jonas

>Atheism is indeed a faith. It’s a set of beliefs that aren’t backed by
any facts. A lot of atheists don’t realize just how religious they
actually are.

Atheism is a belief just as ‘off’ is a television channel, or ‘bald’ is a hair color. It’s nothing more than having not accepted claims about the existence of god. There is no need to make any counter-claim, as the claims we refuse to accept have no evidence supporting them, and thus, are simply dismissed.

Of course, individuals are individuals, so what you say does ring true for a few, just as nearly any statement rings true for few people if you apply it to any major religion.

h4rm0ny

>>“Atheism is a belief just as ‘off’ is a television channel”

No, “off” would be agnosticism – not believing anything. Atheism has a belief (a tv channel), which is that there isn’t a god / creator / whatever.

Mojo

“It’s nothing more than having not accepted claims about the existence of god.” Right. You have faith that there is no need to believe in God. It’s all comes back to faith.

Jonas

Bullshit. I have no reason to believe what you asserted without evidence is to be believed. It’s not faith to discard unsupported hypothesis that run counter to all the evidence.

MPTheGreek

To be agnostic would be the impartial view since no one can know one way or the other for sure. To say you know there is no God without proof is an opinion that you believe in. There is no conclusive proof to prove or disprove God. All universe creation theories are just hypothesis so until science can prove without a doubt how the universe was created there is no way to know. Atheism your Belief beliefs require faith. Atheism is not a fact.

RBH

I’ve found atheists to be more ethical than religious people. Surely a God of ethics and morality would sort his people out a bit better.

The reality is there is no direct evidence of God. There is lots of stuff that people ‘reveal’ after the event supposedly took place. I suppose it’s called truth creep and then eventually becomes a legend and then a religion.

Clown

Atheism is a simple thing but it can be messed up by other stuff like feminism and other political crap. It’s amazing how dillusional some of those people sound like. Just check YouTube feminist videos.

h4rm0ny

>>“Atheism is a simple thing but it can be messed up by other stuff like feminism”

Yep, like most religions, you gotta protect the patriarchy from dangerous notions of equality of female liberation. ;) :D

Jonas

Agnostic, in the conventional sense of “don’t know, don’t care” for the question of whether or not god exists, *IS* atheism, just a specific type. Atheism is nothing more than not accepting claims of gods existing. Those who throw the word “agnostic’ around as the entirety of their religious identifier obviously don’t accept the claim that god exists.

To be honest, most atheists willingly admit they’re agnostic atheists. They aren’t certain there is no divine, they just have no reason to accept the claims put forth concerning the divine.

h4rm0ny

>>“Agnostic, in the conventional sense of “don’t know, don’t care” for the question of whether or not god exists, *IS* atheism, just a specific type”

No it isn’t. It’s neither the same thing nor a specific subset of atheism.

The term “atheist” is popular in the USA for cultural reasons and many who are atheists in a political sense (i.e. they want to spread it, want to promote it as superior) like to try and include agnosticism in with their term because, obviously, it swells the number and gives them a more defensible position.

But the definitions of the two words are clearly distinct and it is not at all hard to grasp the difference between saying “I don’t know / care if there is a god / spiritual being / creator” and “There is not”.

The only reason to conflate the two deliberately is to promote atheism.

Jonas

>No it isn’t. It’s neither the same thing nor a specific subset of atheism.

Bullshit. Atheist/theist is a claim of belief. Agnostic/gnostic is a claim o knowledge. When you say “I’m agnostic”, you’re only giving me half the fucking answer in the first place. You’re agnostic…what? An agnostic atheist? As in you don’t have certain knowledge, but you don’t believe in god? Or an agnostic theist, in that you don’t have certain knowledge, but do believe in god? Obviously, I know when people label themselves ‘agnostic’, they mean ‘agnostic atheist’, as the context makes it pretty clear, but it doesn’t change the fact, it’s still atheist. You do NOT accept the claim that gods exist, therefore you’re an atheist. Or you DO accept any of the myriad claims of gods, and therefore, you’re a theist. Gnostic/agnostic is a question of whether or not you’re certain in your belief or lack thereof.

h4rm0ny

Wow. You have a very For Us or Against Us mindset, don’t you. Doing your bit to show that Atheism really is a religion. ;) Agnostic is a word with a clear meaning for a long time. “Agnostic Atheist” is a contradiction in terms – a person who doesn’t believe in god and says they don’t know whether a god exists or not. It is a term relatively recently invented by militant atheists who want to claim agnosticism as a subset of their group. It isn’t. The difference is simple and the definitions have existed as is for hundreds of years.

dc

It is not, and atheists know it. An atheist has taken a leap of faith and believe, actually believe, that there is no God.

I, an agnostic, simply state that I have no idea either way.

That’s the big difference. The first position is effectively a leap of faith. The second is acknowledgement that I have no evidence either way. I, for example, do not believe that there is no God. I simply don’t know either way. An atheist, on the other hand, believes that there is no God.

Jonas

> An atheist has taken a leap of faith and believe, actually believe, that there is no God.

That’s a gnostic atheist. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. We don’t believe any gods exist, but we aren’t making an affirmative statement that they don’t.

>I, an agnostic, simply state that I have no idea either way.

Which means you don’t accept the claim that gods exist…ergo, you’re an agnostic atheist. If you believed gods existed, but weren’t certain, you’d be an agnostic theist, and if you were certain gods existed, you’d be a gnostic theist.

The important thing to remember is, you *NEED* to accept a claim about gods existing to be a theist, and if you aren’t a theist, you are, by default, and atheist.

I understand, a lot of people don’t want to identify as atheist. Most outspoken atheists are kind of assholes, because they’ve come to grips with the reality that they’ve been lied to their entire lives, or they just got out of an oppressive home life, or in some cases, were even shipped off to jesus camps, or whatever. Doesn’t change the fact that if I ask you “Do you believe any gods exist?” and you give me anything that isn’t a yes, you’re an atheist.

>An atheist, on the other hand, believes that there is no God.

No, no, no, NO! Imagine a jar of jelly beans. Bob says there are 745 jelly beans in it. For the purpose of this metaphor, a theist believes Bob. A gnostic theist believes himself to KNOW there are 745 Jelly Beans, just as Bob states. An agnostic theist doesn’t know for certain, but believes Bob is correct. An agnostic atheist, or ‘agnostic’ in common usage, doesn’t believe Bob is correct in his assertion that there are 745 Jelly Beans. A gnostic atheist believes they knew exactly how many jelly beans there are, and isn’t 745.

You don’t NEED to know how many jelly beans there are to think Bob’s guess is wrong, and that is the position that most atheists hold.

Guest

>>“That’s a gnostic atheist”

The person you are arguing with knows what they are talking about. They are an agnostic. This is different to atheist which is what they describe.
In America the two terms have become conflated by some atheists mainly, I think, because they want to make atheism a defensible position. But the meanings are distinct.

dc

You just said:

“We don’t believe any gods exist”

Yes, that makes you an atheist.

then you said: “but we aren’t making any affirmative statement that they don’t.”

Actually, you just made that statement. You said “We don’t believe any gods exist.”

I don’t know how this could be more clear.

I, on the other hand, am not an atheist. I am agnostic.

I have no knowledge of gods. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I fully accept that there may be a god out there. I also accept that there may not be. This makes me an agnostic.

I know that logic isn’t your strong, but it isn’t the strong suit of most other religious people either.

Jonas

No, an affirmative statement is “God’s don’t exist”. That I don’t believe the assertion that exists isn’t. That I fail to accept the case for existence of every other god that was offered up to me, is also NOT a claim of knowledge that *no* gods exist, nor a claim of knowledge that these specific gods don’t exist. Merely a claim that the evidence presented is insufficient for me to agree.

supercrazypete

The problem is that you are using definitions that are only accepted by a small portion of the population. This is a semantic argument at heart (what label is correct), and therefore a pretty big waste of time. You claim someone who simply ‘does not know either way’ is an ‘agnostic atheist’, while I have always used (and those around me have used) the term ‘agnostic’. Which is correct or not simply depends on the audience, since neither has been formally cannonized by the major dictionaires.

Benny X

It’s quite strange how many people can’t comprehend that there is a ‘third choice’ that can exist apart from theism and atheism. I try to describe Agnosticism to others as not having to make a binary choice, and that it really does not matter. (or being content with religion’s irrelevancy to one’s life)

Although, I guess (and to quote the lyrics of Rush) if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. lol

Mojo

Ahh atheism. The religion that brought us people like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and, of course, the hero of eugenics himself, Adolf Hitler.

Brian Thomas

Atheism is the belief there is no God. Those horrible dictators above who fall into those categories above were probably atheists, because they couldn’t live with the idea that there was something more powerful than them. I don’t believe all atheists believe there isn’t something more powerful like the physics of the universe or mother nature, they just don’t believe there is an all knowing God setting things in motion and making magic changes to peoples lives. Hence it is a long shot to directly group all atheists with people like Hitler. Just saying. A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

Benny X

“…I don’t believe all atheists believe there isn’t something more powerful like the physics of the universe or mother nature..”

It’s funny you mention the physics of the universe. Science and religion aren’t incompatible with each other. Plenty of physicists are theist just as plenty are athiest or agnostic.

Science attempts to explain how things work. A God is of incomprehensible nature and unknowable workings. Until it isn’t. Then it’s no longer a God.

That is, unless there are people who believe in beings with capabilities that can have no possible scientific explanation (also known as a grounding in reality). That would be magic I guess. If one wants to believe in fairies and wizards and such I guess that’s cool. There was a time in the history of mankind when most of us believed in those things too.

dc

It’s not a long shot at all. If you look at Mao, for example, he was the head of a large political party, the Communist Party, which was and still is full of millions of devoted atheists all of whom pretty much share the same view.

Marc Guillot

Atheism a religon ?. LOL !!!!!!

h4rm0ny

>>“Atheism a religon ?. LOL !!!!!!”
Yep, it’s a conclusion without evidence. You may be thinking of Agnosticism which is the only supportable belief system. Atheism invokes the Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence fallacy. However, I have noticed in America many people confuse Atheism and Agnosticism as the same thing.

>>“No retard. If something doesn’t exist, then you don’t have to prove it exist. If you want to prove something exist, then you have to support it with evidence.”

Lovely. Agnosticism is not proving something exists or doesn’t , it is saying “unknown”. Atheism is saying “does not exist”. Unknown does not require evidence because you’re not making an assertion. Saying “does not exist” requires evidence that something is not there.

Your reading comprehension is poor. Agnosticism is not saying something must exist if you can’t prove it doesn’t. It is saying without evidence one way or another, you cannot know.

dc

Not true at all, but I am not going to have a discussion with someone who calls everyone retards. Obviously your IQ is too low to get it.

Plyphon

Saying you “believe” in atheism is like saying you “believe in maths”.

And that is a hard concept for people of religious nature to understand. You don’t believe. It’s not an opposite of religion. In the same way that maths doesn’t have an opposite set of beliefs. It’s nature. In the same way that mathematics is nature.

h4rm0ny

>>Saying you “believe” in atheism is like saying you “believe in maths”.

Not really. Maths is a method, atheism is a statement of belief (there is no God).

>>“And that is a hard concept for people of religious nature to understand. You don’t believe. It’s not an opposite of religion”

Saying there is no god is similarly a position of belief. Saying you don’t know if there is a god or not, is an absence of belief. You are conflating two different things. Atheism is the former, agnosticism is the latter.

>>“In the same way that maths doesn’t have an opposite set of beliefs. It’s nature. In the same way that mathematics is nature”

Maths isn’t nature. It’s something we use to model nature (and hypothetical natures that may not actually exist). A conclusion that there is no god is not a model, it’s an axiom.

Plyphon

>>Not really. Maths is a method, atheism is a statement of belief

Negative, mathematics is the nature of the universe we live in.

>> Maths isn’t nature.

Err, mathematics is the most fundamental part of the universe of which nothing would exist without. Ergo, mathematics is nature.

h4rm0ny

>>“Negative, mathematics is the nature of the universe we live in.”

I repeat: “mathematics is a method”. There are mathematical models of universes that do not exist, yet the maths is still there even though they represent nothing in nature. Maths is not a statement of fact, it is a method that people create and refine, often to model things such as in Physics. A belief that something is so, is not a method, it is a statement of fact. Ergo Atheism, which states that there is no God, is not the same thing as mathematics.

>>“Err, mathematics is the most fundamental part of the universe of which nothing would exist without. Ergo, mathematics is nature.”

Again, it is not a physical thing. The Strong and Weak forces are not “mathematics”. Nor is gravity. They existed long before humans came along and invented ways of modelling them. Those ways are Mathematics. You are trying to conflate the map with the territory so that you can say Atheism is like Mathematics. It is not.

I’m not a sir and I don’t know what you mean by “fundamentalist”. I confine my beliefs to logic. Anything that tries to assert whether something does or doesn’t exist without evidence, is not a supported position. I say without evidence we cannot know (agnosticism) and that *is* the only supportable belief system when it comes to “God” or whatever.

If you disagree, then instead of name-calling, try and prove me wrong. It’s a pretty simple proposition: “if there is no evidence for or against something, we cannot know if it is the case or not”. Where’s the flaw in that?

Marc Guillot

I’m not the one claiming that their beliefs are the only supportable belief system. That’s the definition of fundamentalism.

I’m an atheist, but being raised in a catholic school I respect any other beliefs. Want to know the scientific principle that makes me an atheist instead of an agnostic ? : Occam’s Razor.

Answering your question, facing two alternatives: an Universe that can perfectly be explained by the scientific method versus an Universe created and ruled by a hidden inexplicable entity, then I chose the simple one (Occam’s Razor).

The Bible is full of scientific impossibilities (have you read the Genesis ?, for exemple), so yes, I don’t believe at all in the christian God (the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as much plausible as that christian God), making me an atheist. That’s not believing without evidences, Science gives me all the evidences I need.

h4rm0ny

>>“I’m not the one claiming that their beliefs are the only supportable belief system. That’s the definition of fundamentalism.”

It isn’t, actually. fundamentalism: noun; a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

And yes, I am claiming that my belief system is the only supportable one. For good reason – it is.

It occurs to me that you may not understand what supported argument means and are confusing it with right or wrong / good or bad, etc. That’s not what supported argument means. I can say that I own a dog. I can say that I don’t own a dog. Either one might be right, but neither statement is a supported argument. If I say I own a dog and show you vet bills, then the statement that I own a dog is a supported one.

Belief in a god is not supported – you do not have evidence that God exists. Atheism is not supported – you do not have evidence that god does not exist. Agnosticism is supported – its statement that we do not know, requires a lack of evidence either way. Which is what we have.

>>“Answering your question, facing two alternatives: an Universe that can perfectly be explained by the scientific method versus an Universe created and ruled by a hidden inexplicable entity, then I chose the simple one (Occam’s Razor).”

Occams razor is a heuristic, not a measure of correctness. You misunderstand it. If I give you the sequence “1,2,3” Occam’s razor tells you to explain it with increasing by one each time. But if I reveal more of the series and it goes “1,2,3,5” then Occam’s razor tells you to count in primes (with 1 as a prime, for simplicity’s sake). In neither case does Occam’s razor tell you which is correct for the full sequence which you don’t know. It just tells you not to waste effort by inventing more complex explanations that give the same predictions.

>>“Science gives me all the evidences I need.”

A basic tenet of Science is that you cannot prove a theory, only disprove one. You are doing a disservice to Science by abandoning its principles. And I don’t know why you are doing so.

Have you read the Bible ?, how can any sane person defend that, for example, the Genesis was even remotely scientifically plausible ?. No, God has been completely disproved by Science. God created men at its image ?, Evolution Theory will like to disagree.

Christianism is indeed a plausible belief. But just as plausible as the Flying Spaguethi Monster (did you know that the FSM created the World just 200 years ago and used its noodly appendage to put fossils and all other evidences that makes it look so much older ?).

I chose to believe in the way simpler option (Occam’s Razor). You may chose whatever you want, I really don’t care, but respect that atheism is a well fundamented choice.

h4rm0ny

>>“I chose to believe in the way simpler option (Occam’s Razor). You may chose whatever you want, I really don’t care, but respect that atheism is a well fundamented choice.”
I’m an agnostic. And I’m fine with anyone being atheist, just as I’m fine with someone believing in god. I just don’t accept that either position is supported by evidence. Your repeated misunderstanding of basic Scientific principles is the problem. I repeat, a basic tenet of Science is that you cannot prove a theory is true, you can only prove a theory wrong. This is not just me saying this. Go and read some Popper or something more basic if you prefer. There are basic principles of Science and that is one of them. If I give you a sequence of a thousand ones, you can declare a theory that the next number will also be a one, but you cannot prove that it will be, you can only prove that it isn’t if you find out that the number wasn’t.

That is what separates Science from religion. Science deals with theories, creating ever better ones each time by disproving the one that came before it. This is the Scientific Method. You may have heard of that. Religion does not do this. Religion makes an assertion and says “this is so”. Atheism does the same thing. Agnosticism is the only scientifically supported position.

Marc Guillot

The nerve you have. Telling that atheists we are the same that any religion is you just being a dick.

Tell me a single religion with a scientifically possible God. Christianism, judaism, islamism, …. none of them are scientifically possible. I would love to see anyone trying to twist our current knowledge of the Universe to make it fit the Genesis, for starters.

Refusing to believe in any of these disproved Gods (atheism) is very different than making an act of faith on one of them (religion).

I have not make any act of faith, and that differentiates me of a religious. If suddenly appears a new religion consistent with our scientific knowledge I would perfectly consider it. So keep your arrogance for yourself.

Mojo

What’s your definition of “science”, anyway? Because “science” means “to know”. Certianly you’ve abandoned the scientific method, since you believe evolution is a proven fact, so what do you define as “science”?

Marc Guillot

Evolution is one of the most well proven theories Science has ever build. So it is to be considered as fact until proved wrong (if that ever happens, which is massively doubtful after so many years under test).

Mojo

Again, stating opinions with no support. Where are you facts, tested via the scientific method? Have you done any? Or is it that you believe the testamony of scientists that have tested evolution via the scientific method (they don’t exist)? I appreciate tha you’re zealous for your faith, but if you’re going to convince anyone, or have any sort of a logical dialoge, you’re going to have to either acknowledge that you faith is indeed a faith, or start presenting your facts.

Benny X

“Evolution is one of the most well proven theories Science has ever build. So it is to be considered as fact until proved wrong….”

the Theory of Evolution is a theory. It cannot be considered an irrefutable fact, that’s why it’s called a theory.

Mind you, it’s the best theory we have. That does not mean it is correct. Many people assume it is ‘the best explanation’, though.

Marc Guillot

Yeah, so I said …. until proved wrong.

Mojo

In the same post, you say “Christianism, judaism, islamism, …. none of them are scientifically possible.” “I have not committed myself to any act of faith” and then say “So keep your arrogance for yourself, my beliefs are just as scientifically supported as yours.”
Wow. Just wow.

Marc Guillot

Are they scientifically possible ?. Then for starters care to explain how you intend to fit the Genesis with our current scientific knowledge of the Universe.

Mojo

You’re asking someone who isn’t a scientist. But I can tell you that I first believe the Genesis account, and I believe what scientists who are Creationists say about the evidence. Scientists who believe in evolution have the same evidence as Creationists, yet interpret it through their evolutionary presuppositions. Same with scientists who are Christains. We have the same universe, the same Grand Canyon, the same fossils, and yet we come to two different conclusions. If you’re actually interested in knowing how science and the bible go hand in hand (and not just asking because you’re looking to pounce on something you don’t like), check out Creation Ministries or Answers in Genesis. They are better spoken than I am.

Marc Guillot

I won’t check it now (no much time or sincerely interest). But thanks for the information. If I ever have crisis of non-faith now I’ll know where to look. :-)

Mojo

HA! Sounds good, sir.

Benny X

“The nerve you have. Telling that atheists we are the same that any religion is you just being a dick.”

From a logical standpoint, he’s not wrong. And I don’t think he/she is trying to ‘be a dick’ about it. Much of what he/she is talking about (the Scientific Method, Proofs, Axioms, Logic, etc.) you learn in school if you advance far enough in Science and Maths.

Strictly speaking, Atheism and Theism speak in absolutes (God exists, God does not exist). The Agnostic position says ‘We cannot know if God exists’. We have no proof that God does or does not exist. The only logical conclusion or valid statement we can make is that we cannot know if a God exists or not.

Marc Guillot

This is not so.

If you bring up a deity consistent with our current scientific knowledge then I’d switch to agnosticism and accept that we cannot know.

But the God we are talking about here (the christian God, as while as judaism, islamism, …) is very far from consistent with our current scientific knowledge and has thoroughly been disproven.

Unless someone explains how we can fit the Genesis with our knowledge of the Universe (and that’s only for starters), I can’t accept that any of these Gods exists … so I’m an atheist.

We are not making any act of faith here. Bring a religion consistent with our scientific knowledge over the table or accept that for the time being atheism is as valid as agnosticism.

Benny X

OK… let’s go about this a different way.

Theist: “God exists.”
– a statement that requires proof to be true. If you believe a God exists and you have no proof of this, then your belief is based on faith.

Atheist: “God does not exist”.
– there is no way to prove a God does not exist. Because proof will forever be insufficient, the Atheist position is based on faith.

Agnostic: “We don’t know if God exists or not”

– a statement that requires no proof to be true, as it is a factual statement thus far. There is no proof yet that a God exists, and there is no way to prove a God does not exist. Thus the Agnostic position can be the only true position that does not require faith.

Marc Guillot

I already told you, we have proven that God does not exist. Try to fit the Genesis with our knowledge of the Universe. It’s impossible.

So the Atheist position is not based on faith, but in Science (and will be so until someone brings up a new deity consistent with our scientific knowledge).

Benny X

Assuming what you say is true (and I am humoring you, here) and we have ‘proven that God cannot exist’, you are talking of only one God. There are many religions on this Earth. And you are ignoring the possibility that there is a God (or Gods) that remain unknown to us.

The Atheist position is not based on science. It is a belief, based on faith, because that is all it can be, and will ever be.

You seem to be saying ‘because there is no scientific proof that a God exists, then no God exists’. Do you see the problem with that logic?

Marc Guillot

Please, don’t humor me, I would be very interested about how you try to fit the Genesis with our knowledge of the creation of the Universe. :-)

Bring this new God (or Gods) over the table and I may switch to agnosticism, until then I’m an atheist, and it is not a belief, it is not based on faith.

Benny X

I’m Agnostic, so I don’t need to provide proof. As you are Athiest, no proof would ever be enough for you anyways.

I don’t expect you to understand this, as it seems logic is not your strength and this makes your reasoning skills less than adequate for this particular subject.

Marc Guillot

If for once you read what I write, you’ll learn that it’s me who is proving that God cannot exist. The Genesis doesn’t fit in any possible way with our knowledge of the creation of the Universe. So God cannot exist.

PS: for your information, I got an A+ in logic at my IT degree, I loved it. Try another one.

Marc Guillot

If for once you try to read what I write you’ll learn that I’m not asking for proofs. It is me who proves that God doesn’t exist, the Genesis doesn’t fit in any possible way with our knowledge of the creation of the Universe, so God cannot exist.

PS : I love logic, I got an A+ in logic at my IT degree. So try another attack ad hominem.

Benny X

It’s not my job to convince you that one particular God is real or not. Perhaps that particular God does not exist. Perhaps all the other ones in all the world’s religions are false, too. That still would mean that none of us truly know if there is a God or not. If you were being honest with yourself you would see that the Atheist’s position is one of ignorance and is completely beyond logic because it doesn’t consider what is yet unknown or could forever be unknowable.

Marc Guillot

Hi Benny.

Probably you are right and strictly speaking I’m not a “true” atheist. But don’t forget that we live in a christian society, when we talk about God’s existence, we are talking about “the” God (which basically is the same God than in judaism and islamism, because all these religions share the same origins, profets, scriptures, …).

I don’t have any statistics backing this, but I feel that most atheists are like myself. When they/we say that God doesn’t exists, we mean that this God doesn’t exists, “the” God as our society knows it.

I’m not as narrow minded to automatically discard any possibility of a sentient creative entity in the Universe (although I would strongly oppose to name it God, as this denomination is already well taken in our society). As you say, our knowledge is always evolving.

But as long as our society keeps having this christian/judaic/islamic centric concept of God, I feel save to identify myself as an “atheist”, as a non-believer in the existence of “the” God. If, and only if, this concept broadens to a more ampler concept as the one you suggest, then I think I will be forced to re-evaluate this identification of atheist.

Benny X

I understand where you are coming from, and why you choose to call yourself Athiest. My personal standpoint is that if we ever *did* discover a ‘Godlike’ entity or presence, I still would not consider it a God, but merely something more advanced than us that we don’t quite understand. But it will be something that has a scientific basis in reality. I consider ‘Gods’ to be those magical mythical things you find in fairy tales, so I will never use that word to describe anything in reality, as I don’t like its connotations.

This personal standpoint of mine doesn’t prevent me from being Agnostic. I just don’t think it’s a smart thing to go around using the word ‘God’, lol. To me the word seems ridiculous.

Marc Guillot

I’m glad to be able to subscribe every one of your words. :-)

Marc Guillot

Please, don’t humor me, I would be very interested about how you try to fit the Genesis with our knowledge of the creation of the Universe.

Haven’t you read what I said (thrice nonetheless) ?. I have never said that ‘because there is no scientific proof that a God exists, then no God exists’. I have said that God cannot exist because it’s not consistent with our scientific knowledge.

We have proven that God doesn’t exists, so atheism is not based on faith, is based on Science.

Mojo

Fundimental to what? To be a “fundimental” means to hold to the basic statements of faith of a religion. Like the “fundimentalist muslims” that have eben shooting up people or sawing off their heads. They hold to the original basics of their religion.

Marc Guillot

You are right.

I quoted it because fundamentalists are the ones that believe that their beliefs are the only right, and absolutely everyone else is wrong.

But technically you are right. This is not the definition of fundamentalism.

My bad.

Mojo

“Aint no THANG”, I’d say if I were more ethnic.

Mojo

“I quoted it because all fundamentalists believe that their beliefs are the only right, and absolutely everyone else is wrong.” Like you! At least you don’t fall into that idea that if something claims to be exclusive, it must be wrong. There’s no justification for that statement, and no one ever tells me by what ultimate standard they make that assumption. It’s self refuting anyway, since it claims to be exclusively true that there is no exclusive truth.
Sorry, that was a bit of an aside.

Marc Guillot

Don’t get me wrong. I was raised on a catholic school, so I deeply respect believers (most of my friends are believers). I consider myself a catholic even if I can believe in God because I can’t fit him in my scientific knowledge of the Universe. There is much more in religion (tradition, ethical values, …) than God …

dc

America is a big place. I am an American and I am agnostic. I certainly don’t confuse it with being an atheist. As a former philosophy student, I certainly don’t confuse the two. I’m sure that if I went to Europe and just rounded up the average Joe on the street that they would be as confused as the average American.

h4rm0ny

>>“I’m sure that if I went to Europe and just rounded up the average Joe on the street that they would be as confused as the average American.”

Maybe. I honestly don’t know. I didn’t mean to cause offense with the statement. It’s just that there’s a strain of militant atheism in the USA that we don’t have in most of Europe, or at least is far less common. Mainly, I think, because Christianity is not one of the main forces controlling society, so there isn’t the same militant reaction against it.

So when I hear people getting very passionate on the subject of atheism it is nearly always Americans and typically, because they want to show the logical superiority of their belief, they use the logic of Agnosticism (which is self-consistent) rather than Atheism, which is an assertion.

Apologies if I came across as suggesting all or most Americans didn’t understand the difference. I meant rather that militant atheism is common in the USA and these are the people who typically conflate the two, ime.

Benny X

Apple tried to push its technological vision as a religion, so anything is possible! :)

Mojo

Sure. It’s a set of beliefs that are not based on any facts. Couldn’t you apply that same phrase to Bhuddism, or Hinduism, or Christianity? The chosen faith of atheists is….atheism.

Atheism is just the scientific certainty that the christian God is ridicule. No more, no less.

Mojo

Indeed, it’s actually the unscientific belief that (specifically the Christian?) God is ridicules. I’d love you to show me where that was proved via the scientific method.

Marc Guillot

The whole Bible is scientifically ridicule, have you read the Genesis, for example ?.

The christian God is just scientifically impossible, to make it even plausible you will need to change the christian religion beyond recognition : God created men at its image ?, hell no, evolution created mankind.

“to make it even plausible you will need to change the christian religion beyond recognition” You make a lot of statements of faith, and offer no substance to substantiate what you’re talking about. But that’s ok. That’s your faith.

Marc Guillot

Unfortunately for you Evolution is not a matter of faith, is a very well proven fact.

That’s the difference with the scientific method and a religion. We don’t need to turn to faith (as you do), we only deal with proven facts, and if new facts happen to contradict our previous theories, we rebuild them from the ground up and prove them.

Mojo

Evolution is a fact eh? You religous nuts are crazy.

Marc Guillot

LOL !!!

h4rm0ny

>>“Atheism is just the scientific certainty that the christian God is ridicule”

This argument would be better coming from someone who understood Scientific principles. Science cannot prove a theory (in this case that God does not exist), it can only disprove theories. Read some Popper or similar. Science works with falsifiable theories. Throughout this thread, you demonstrate that you do not understand basic scientific principles.

Marc Guillot

Sorry to kick your arse off your high arrogant horse.

The christian religion has already been thoroughly disproved. I’m still waiting how do you intend to fit the Genesis with our current knowledge of the creation of the Universe.

Benny X

“Atheism is just the scientific certainty that the christian God is ridicule. No more, no less.”

Atheism is a belief. There’s no science backing it. First there must be purported evidence that God exists before the scientific method can be applied and only then perhaps can the evidence be disproved. That still would not prove that a God does not exist, it would only prove that the evidence thus far is not valid.

Marc Guillot

I completely disagree, there is Science perfectly backing atheism.

God (we all know the God we are talking about here) has been thoroughly disproven by Science.

If someone wants to question this statement, we can start with them trying to explain to me how they intend to fit the Genesis with our current scientific knowledge of the Universe.

The scientific method is very good at discarding theories that don’t conform with the observed facts, and God is one of these discarded theories (unless someone can conform the Genesis and many other passages of the Bible about God with our knowledge).

dc

it is a leap of faith and the people who have made that leap of faith try to convert others to their belief. You can LOL all you want, but that’s just a tactic to avoid logical discourse.

Marc Guillot

Many years of religion discussions have teach me to avoid them. No one is gonna convince no one. We believe with our guts, not our brains.

Mojo

“No one is gonna convince no one.” A very true statement. The bible says that God has to give you that faith.

Benny X

“…Ahh atheism. The religion that brought us people like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and, of course, the hero of eugenics himself, Adolf Hitler.”

Are you seriously saying religious people aren’t capable of mass murder? Have you forgotten how many people have been killed in Christianity’s (or Islam’s) name?

Heck, there’s even a whole section of history called ‘The Crusades’!

Raymond

Atheism in USSR was a religious cult. Church was the enemy of communism, so communists invented their own religion to counter christianity with “atheism preachers” and “atheism churches”. Of course, people who have not lived in USSR doesn’t know this. Just please don’t put words “atheism”, “peace” and “education” in one sentence, because they have nothing to do with each other.

“You: Fire breathing flying dragons are real”
Technically, unicorns and dragons can exist on another planet in a galaxy far far away. So scientist will answer – existence of dragons is unknown. The same principle applies to question about existence of a higher power – it is unknown.

That is just a cult or hate group. They can be made up of anyone including Atheists. I never said Atheists are somehow all good people that can do no wrong. I don’t think you understand what I mean when I said “atheist population correlates to peace and education level”. It’s ok, statistics is hard.

“Technically, unicorns and dragons can exist on another planet in a galaxy far far away”

LOL, I’m surprised you didn’t go with “in another dimension….”

dc

other dimensions don’t exist. We can’t prove them. Much like aliens and faster than light travel. Or if we were in the 1300’s we could ssy America does not exist.

Not sure where I said that fire-breathing dragons are real. Oh that’s right, I said no such thing!

But you’re right, a lot is unknown, including the existence of a ‘god’. You can choose to call it a ‘higher power’, but I’ll err on the safe side and say that if such a being exists, it is a God only because we don’t understand much about it, thus our abilities, or power, pales in comparison.

h4rm0ny

>>“Are you seriously saying religious people aren’t capable of mass murder?”
Obviously they are not. They are pointing out that mass murder is not confined to religious people but has also often been perpetrated by the non-religious.

They were responding to someone who suggested mass-murder was the province of the religious. But mass-murder is for everyone.

Benny X

“… But mass-murder is for everyone.”

I like this idea. Anyone has it in them to be a mass-murderer at any time. It’s quite liberating!

Mojo

” Humans have a tendency to lust for power and domination over others.” Darn tootin they do. And you’re right about another thing as well: When Christians go against what the bible tells them to do, and they murder, that’s bad. But when so-called Christians do things like that, it’s in violation of their beliefs, not because of them. Not so with Atheism. Survival of the fittest!

Benny X

I’m not sure why you believe Atheists all subscribe to the ‘survival of the fittest’ mindset, as I can assure you they do not. They can be just as moral and ethical as a Christian. The difference is that Athiests live for the here and now whereas Christians try to conduct themselves in a way that ensures them passage into some sort of afterlife. In the end, the conduct of Athiests and Christians in this life differs very little if at all.

Mojo

” They can be just as moral and ethical as Christians.” You’re right. When they borrow that morality from the bible, they indeed can be. Otherwise, they have no rational basis for calling anything good or bad.

Benny X

Holding up the Bible as a shining example of rationality does not make it so, as there are contradictions in its pages. Do you think rationality or morality began with the Bible? You don’t actually believe its content was entirely original do you? Not to mention today’s version of the Bible is just that.. a version. It’s been edited, cut-down to omit the parts that didn’t serve the interests of some.

Humans are quite capable of rational thought and deciding among themselves what is good or bad for them as a whole, and indeed they do. That is how society operates, and there were societies in existence before ‘biblical times’ that did the same.

Mojo

“as there are contradictions in its pages.” yeah, I realize that there are people who believe that who haven’t looked into it themselves. Had this conversation many times in the past.

Benny X

so you have no problem with a God that forbids killing yet seems to have no problem killing many when it suits him?

Why does this God at times act impetuous and vengeful? Those are human traits. You’d think a God would be so advanced he’d be above all that. Why does it need to feel powerful if it’s already all-powerful? A real God wouldn’t need our allegiance (AKA worship). It wouldn’t care. We’d be like ants to it. Yet this God seems to have an ego.

An entity that is purported to be everywhere at once and know everything that is going to happen…. yet it meddles in our affairs. Tries convincing us of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (which, depending on context, or what side you’re on, can and does often change), when he already knows what’s going to happen to us anyhow. Seems futile. Why would a God engage in an exercise in futility? Doesn’t seem too intelligent.

Wayyyy back in the ‘Garden of Eden’, he says ‘don’t eat the fruit’, the whole time knowing that Adam and Eve are going to do it anyways. Then he throws them out for exercising free will. There’s a God who tells us of forgiveness yet has trouble forgiving us itself.

Anyhow.. the list goes on. Perhaps this God easily impressed a more primitive people, but this collection of old writings now known as the Bible reads like a bad novel today. It’s not much to marvel at.

Mojo

“Not to mention today’s version of the Bible is just that.. a version. It’s been edited, cut-down to omit the parts that didn’t serve the interests of some.” Same comment. The Dead Sea Scrolls, among the many, many, many manuscripts show that what we have today is faithful to the original.

Benny X

Except that what we have today is not faithful to the original sources. The Bible is a collection of works, written over a period of time by various authors. Some of those works are written recollections or rewordings of even older sources. All that’s left in the form of the Bible is a sample of some of those works. Over time, many have been omitted. There’s been censorship. Errors in translation. And in some cases there’s stories based on even older stories. Much of it can only be understood within the context of the time that it was written. You certainly wouldn’t want to follow the Bible to the letter. You can go ahead and try, but it won’t end well for you, though.

Mojo

“Humans are quite capable of rational thought and deciding among themselves what is good or bad for them as a whole, and indeed they do.” Well sure, because we were made with the capacity to understand those things. Hard as you may try to deny how we were made we have that basic sense of right and wrong.

Benny X

I’m sure you’d love the storybook version of our creation to be true, but just like most other followers you were born into your religion so you believe it’s the only true one and to question it now would be inconvenient.

Mojo

Wow! Assumptions upon assumptions! But you think evolution is a fact. There’s no point talking to someone like you, who thinks they know it all, when they don’t!

Benny X

Actually, I have trouble believing the theory of evolution as it stands at the moment. It might be true, it might not. I prefer to focus on where we’re going (which we have some control over) rather than where we came from (which is always going to be an uncertainty).

Pan

my half-sister makes $67 an hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $15792 just working on the computer for a few hours. site here;.There is…

Patherick

Hitler was a practicing Roman Catholic.

Flop64

aaaand, let the flamewar begin.

Zunalter

Just tweak the software to reject locking onto humanoid targets for the non-military version.

Yes, like gun free zones. Because gun free zones generally have much lower gun related incidents than do-whatever-the-hell-you-want zones. Does “level of difficulty” or “ease of access” light up any bulbs in your brain housing group?

Mojo

Ahh, you mean like Aurora, CO? Or Newtown? Or cities with generally high crime rates like Chicago? Or San Francisco? Or Detroit? Gotta love those liberal bastions of gun control laws.

Zunalter

Tell that to every mass shooting victim ever…

kevinp2

Some reading for you:

Media bias on gun free zones

–Begin quote:

Tuesday’s tragic attack at a FedEx facility in Cobb County, Georgia, left six people injured, with one still in critical condition.

… there was a virtual complete media blackout on one of the most important aspects of the attack: that it occurred where guns are banned, in a “gun-free zone.”

Ironically, for Tuesday’s shooting, photos of the building where the attack occurred, including the one shown at the top of this article that was released by the Associated Press, clearly show two gun ban signs at the front of the building. In this picture they appear near the head of the police officer.

But why doesn’t the media report this? Is it so hard for reporters to understand that killers like to attack victims where they can’t protect themselves?

Gun-free zones aren’t just newsworthy because they serve as magnets for attacks. In 2012, FedEx fought hard against a Tennessee bill that allowed employees “with valid permits to keep firearms stored in their vehicles while at work.” FedEx successfully watered down the bill so much that it still allowed employers to opt out and fire any employees who stored in cars in parking lots.

During the legislative debate, Mark Hogan, vice president of security for FedEx, warned that gun bans were necessary because: “Allowing employees to have near, immediate access to firearms, at work, creates an element of risk that is unacceptable.”

The media should ask FedEx whether their gun-free zone had worked the way they expected.

This is like quoting any crime story in any country because it is essentially all no-crime zones. Of course shit will happen. Why don’t you compare gun incidents between gun-free zones and do-whatever-the-hell-you-want zone? I know why, because you’ll look pretty dumb.

powerwiz

Does what happened in Paris light up that burnt out bulb in the bowl of mush you have for a brain? How could that happen…the whole country is a gun free zone. Oh my god…it failed. How could that happen? By golly time to move to the bill boards vice signs.

Your one of idiots who believe someone looks up sees “The Gun Free” zone sign stops and says boy I better not go here I might get into trouble….but the sign does give comfort to the morons like you and that is worth it all. You can hug after they put the sign up pat each other on the back and feel you did something.

Jonas

Gun Free Zones are a joke, and a piss poor one at that. There are WAY too many guns in circulation in the United States for ‘gun free zones’ to be anything but a joke without some serious security to search everyone and enforce it.

Just because it is not 100% effective does not mean it’s a joke. If you think gun free zone is a joke then every law prohibiting people to do anything is a joke. I can break any law anytime I want and nobody is going to stop me. It is reactive, not proactive. Gun free zone make people think twice about how prison team will affect their life and will deter most people, not all.

Jonas

>Just because it is not 100% effective does not mean it’s a joke.

Please. Gun free zones are zero percent effective. People who want to bring guns, bring them no matter how stern the sign you put up.

>If you think gun free zone is a joke then every law prohibiting people to do anything is a joke.

Nope. They serve a small deterrence, but it’s mostly about punishing them afterwards. Bringing a gun into a gun-free zone is laughable when you’re adding it to first degree murder, so it doesn’t ever serve as the minor deterrence other laws do, and it adds nothing to the punishment afterwards. It’s like writing a speeding ticket for the guy that just rammed a VBIED into your gate.

I’m astonished that you managed to write this without questioning yourself.

If laws and restrictions does not work, then tell me why Japan and Australia’s gun crime rates are next to nothing compared to the US. The only difference was more restrictions and tougher gun laws.

In 2008, Japan had a total of 11 gun incidents while the US had over 12,000. Of the 23 richest countries in the world, the US gun incidents is 20 times higher than the rest combined.

If you rammed a VBIED into a gate, you’re getting a lot more than a speeding ticket you idiot.

Jonas

Perhaps you missed the entire point I brought up, which is that the sheer number of guns in the United States, and ease of access, is what makes it a joke. Japan doesn’t have more guns than people. The average Japanese citizen can’t go down the street and buy a gun. THAT is the difference.

>If you rammed a VBIED into a gate, you’re getting a lot more than a speeding ticket you idiot.

That was my exact point. Gun Free Zones are the equivalent of handing out speeding tickets for ramming the gate with a VBIED, or are you seriously telling me that after first degree murder, the gun free zone violation is really adding anything of substance to my sentencing? The guy that rammed the gate with the VBIED is already getting his ‘enhanced’ interrogation, so I don’t think the ticket is making a difference. Or, you know, he might be more competent than the guy I watched do this, and his VBIED actually exploded…

You really think gun restrictions don’t lower murder rates? Despite data consistently backing it up? The US gun laws are probably moderate, not high like most 1st world country. But even our moderate gun laws helps a lot. We have the highest gun ownership rate of any country but nowhere near the murder rate compared to those other countries with awful gun control.

If I know running over a gate with a VBIED lands me prison time, most people wouldn’t do it. You’re just rambling trying to say things you don’t understand and making up stupid scenarios. Moving the goal posts doesn’t mean you are right or won any argument.

By gun-free countries, you actually mean countries where guns are only possessed by government agents, right?

I would like to introduce the concept of democide – the mass murder of people by government. These people had usually been disarmed first, under the pretext of public safety and law and order. The result: Governments murdered 262 million people in the 20th century:

Except there were countries that wasn’t a gun free zone and the government still commit mass murders anyways.

Why don’t you read the actual list of all the countries that committed them, then sort out the type of government it had, economic policies and education level of the population. Then you’ll find the real answer is not about having gun free zones or not.

yes, it it did happen. Bank robbery rates increased significantly after it was cheap enough for your typical robbed to afford. In fact, it wasn’t just bank robbery. Convenience stores, gas stations, movie theaters, etc.. all increased. The police adapted by using helicopters and radios.

Tell me how easy it is to adapt to catching someone with a completely automated sniping rifle that he can set up days prior and be nowhere near it. If the thing has an accurate range of 1800 meters, you’re going to have to search the entire city lol.

Barry Ferguson

You seem to be missing the fact that this shit happens already. You can’t stop progress. You also can’t stop fanatics and criminals from doing bad things. File this under the folder of “no control.”

I think that’s pretty much the same concept as an IED, except that an IED destroys most of its evidence. Besides, if I wanted to remote control something and had a 17000 dollar budget, it’d be a vbed that could kill a lot of people at once, not some contraption that can only kill one.

Jonas

Eh, building a VBIED isn’t that easy unless you have access to quality explosives. Something hard to get your hands on usually, and most people that pursue the path of making their own usually can’t get their hands on them either since they don’t have hands anymore…

Meh, if we start applauding political assassinations, even for terrible politicians (whose definition depends on your personal leanings, thus, slippery slope), then we become a 3rd world basketcase country overnight.

You may have been, but I have several questions about the general sanity of the populace at large.

MPTheGreek

Let’s also mention if everyone owned one of these the federal government will think twice about killing American citizens with drones without due process. One of these should take a drone out of the sky. Guns are a deterrent to tyrannical government s which are the norm throughout human history. One if the reasons America is free is because the people making the laws know we are armed. That security against tyranny is worth the cost. Gun control exists in Mexico and Chicago. Guns deter criminals from attacking you. Gun free zones are great places to rob people. College campus etc. It’s really common sense get a gun. Your not putting the genie back in the bottle criminals will always have them they can be printed. All you can do is own one and don’t wait until your a victim to buy one.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki

BillBasham

Get some bleach, fertilizer, etc… Get a $15 motion sensor. Remote kill accomplished, doable anytime in the last 35 years.

MrKamikaze

$8k pays for a lot of bomb making material your fears are laughable at best.

Blank Reg

I think the more salient point is that now anyone with enough cash can become a sniper – no specialized training required. That might be needed should there be new Civil War.

BC

You’re not grasping how it works. Someone is still going to have to aim it, and squeeze the trigger. You’re not going to be able to set it in a window, walk off and it aim its self and fire a shot. The scope just compensates for outside factors, and will only fire when it recognizes the target. Up until now that was done on a sheet of paper, or an app on your phone or ipad, then the shooter would manually adjust their scope and take the shot. Not that difficult, and can be done at a price 1/4 of their cheapest gun. You’re naive if you think now people are going to start offing people because there’s now a gun that’ll magically do it with nobody around. Do you think terrorist, cowardly mass shooters, and the such are worried about getting caught or having an escape route. I would imagine over the next 100 years, there will be more people killed with a sub two hundred dollar pistol than thing.

Guest

That has been a legitimate capability for around a decade.

DrkNite72

So I’m unsure how this can be used improperly. You still have to pull the trigger, it doesn’t do it for you, what it does it holds the shot till you are on target.
There is a great video on Trackingpoints site showing how it work.

Simply, you have to tag the target with a push button on the rifle, you then pull the trigger turning the cross hair red, when the cross hair center to the tag spot again the weapon fires.
Anyone who is properly trained knows you don’t pull the trigger if you don’t want to kill what you are pointing at, and all this does is means you are going to hit what you were pointing at more often. No setup ahead of time, no it shoot for you there is user intervention of pulling the trigger involved.

Jeff Vahrenkamp

I suspect the author meant used to kill civilians when he said “Improper usage”, not accidentally shooting something you weren’t aiming at.

Have you ever watch mythbusters or seen how they do car crashes for movies?

Any vehicle can be control by a set of hydraulic tubes, electric motors, and other simple off the shelf parts connected to a computer and some type of wireless transmitter.

What makes you think someone can’t build something for the rifle? It would be even easier. The missing part for this challenge had always been the targeting system, accuracy and range. Guess what? that problem is solved apparently with this new version. You can shoot nearly as good as an expert sniper and unhindered by weather effects.

Jonas

Definitely a plus for gun safety. Definitely a minus for people who collect enemies like they’re pokemon, and don’t want to get shot. I can understand the apprehension about this weapon, as few people can actually reach out and tag someone with a bullet at a mile, but this gun supposedly makes it nice and easy. If I was the kind of person that had personal security and thought I had a legitimate reason to fear being assassinated, I’d be pretty nervous about this and probably never leave an armored bunker again. Good thing I’m a nobody :D

That being said, there is no stopping this. Was only a matter of time before it was made, and only a matter of time until people figure out how to build their own.

h4rm0ny

>>“Anyone who is properly trained knows you don’t pull the trigger if you don’t want to kill what you are pointing at, and all this does is means you are going to hit what you were pointing at more often.”

By your reasoning what we currently have is two types of people:
(a) able to hit something but less likely to try.
(b) dumb enough to try but less likely to succeed.
This device breaks the pattern and removes the “less likely to succeed” part. So making things a lot more dangerous out there.

That’s based on what you say, anyway. Personally I’m a little hesitant to accept the assumption that those who practice most with guns are those who least want to use them..

MisterBlat

“The ability to share footage and takedowns will strike some as improper, but it’s likely to be well received by the firearm’s target market.”

Generally, when you find yourself needing your rifle in the Air Force, someone including you have already fucked up.

Marines still train with the bayonet. But if you look into it, it’s not about actually using it in combat because the enemy won’t wait 3 minutes for you to install it. They train with it in basic for mental preparation of war and battle.

dc

There have been a few documented cases of the bayonet being used, or at least affixed during combat, in Iraq. I concede it is a bad option, but sometimes all the options are bad.

A bayonet is just a large knife. I don’t know why anyone would even affix it unless for very special circumstances like reaching for something lol. In actual close quarter combat, using the knife as a bayonet will cause more fatigue and increases your chances of getting your weapon yanked from you. If you run out of ammo, you will get rushed so I doubt you’ll have time. Extending the length of your weapon will only cause it to catch on more things or even self inflicted injuries. I would say only noobs would ever affix their bayonet. I would trade the higher maneuverability over awkward extensions anyways. I spent 2 years in Iraq in the USMC, I would know.

“A bayonet is not something a soldier can affix at will, it is a sensitive item and has to be issued by the arms room. The ROE has to allow bayonet use and is usually mounted BEFORE battle.”

Ok keyboard warrior, why don’t you actually look up what ROE is before you make a complete ass of yourself. Then search for a google image a bayonet attachment on an M16. You’ll find it is exactly as I said.

You’re arguing against someone who spent nearly a decade in the USMC during OEF and OIF. I know what the fuck I’m talking about as I slept with rifle more than my wife during those years.

james johnson

Calm down high speed. You act like you’re the only one this site who has served. I probably spent more time than you in theater considering I had two year long tours in Iraq, and from what I understand you leather necks dont like to deploy for longer than 6 months at a time. I know what ROE is and there is no one fixed ROE. There are rules for for an invasionary force and separate rules for and occupying force, and occupiers don’t affix bayonet’s. So you need to go sit down and stop acting like your the sole truth of the entire Internet.

Jonas

Not sure if serious…in a situation where you have no bullets left to shoot (and neither does the enemy) and you have to close with the enemy and kill them in close combat, the bayonet isn’t a large *knife*, it’s a small *spear*. The easiest melee weapon to train people to use, and FAR more effective than a knife. There’s a reason back when bayonet charges were common, people didn’t drop their rifles and pull out a knife. Trust me, the extra fatigue for stabbing with an affixed bayonet versus just a knife is irrelevant. The guy with just a knife isn’t living long enough to matter.

Somewhat irrelevant to modern times however, as we no longer do shit like “2 shots then charge”.

Bro, we’re talking about a modern bayonet, which is a large knife with a clip to attach to your rifle under the barrel, instead of the cvil war version that is more like a spear head. Here, I even took the time to search the image for you since you have no clue what you’re saying but refuse to do basic research.

I don’t understand why you bother to keep arguing against someone has the knowledge AND EXPERIENCE.

Top reasons why you don’t ever attach bayonets:

1. No time to attach when it’s actually needed

2. Completely mess up your aim

3. Weapon is too long and limit your maneuverability

4. It might catch onto something since your weapon is now too long

5. Fatigue

6. You might accidentally hurt yourself or others

7. It’s awkward as hell

8. Chances are the other guy will shoot you, not pull out a knife and duel.

9. It’s A LOT EASIER to fight against someone with rifle + bayonet. All you gotta do is step in when they miss a swing and that bayonet is useless.

10. It’s much better to just wield a knife.

11. You’re letting your enemy knows you ran out of ammo

You’re completely off on ROE and plain wrong about bayonets. I won’t try to correct you anymore because I doubt I can change your mind. I have spent extensive time in combat zones and knows literally no one who will attach the bayonet in their wildest dream. Most people usually attach it to their body armor with the grip facing down or sideways.

Jonas

I’m not sure I understand your point. Using a bayonet as a knife for fighting is fucking stupid, and using it as a bayonet is only marginally *less* stupid and a matter of desperation.

>I don’t understand why you bother to keep arguing against someone has the knowledge AND EXPERIENCE.

Because you aren’t the only person to have ever held one or gone through basic training?

>1. No time to attach when it’s actually needed

>2. Completely mess up your aim

Totally agree. The bayonet is nothing more than a tool of absolute last resort, that you probably won’t ever live long enough to use if the situation calls for it.

>3. Weapon is too long and limit your maneuverability

Weapon…is too long…hahahaha. That’s funny. This is totally why people used pocket knives to charge a pike formation. Gun + Bayonet = Use like a fucking spear! I’m going to have my Bayonet sticking in your gut LONG before you’re in range to touch me with that knife. You’ve watched WAY too many action movies if you think you’re going to sidestep or swat away a thrust with nothing but a knife.

>4. It might catch onto something since your weapon is now too long

A problem various militaries the world over have dealt with for a couple thousand years, and yet, the spear was still the main go-to weapon until the repeating rifle finally made it obsolete.

>5. Fatigue

I’ll take the added fatigue over the ridiculously fast death of being the guy with a knife in a bayonet fight, though in reality, it’s highly unlikely I’d ever be in a situation where I need to use a bayonet. It’s like worrying about what kind of elephant I want to get if I ever win one off a radio show.

>6. You might accidentally hurt yourself or others

Same can be said for the rifle itself. Friendly fire is a serious issue. The sort of melee fighting that would justify using a knife or bayonet? Ha! Blue on Blue is going to the rule, not the exception. Especially since we don’t exactly train for it. On the plus side, no one else does either.

>7. It’s awkward as hell

Not going to deny that. It’s also less awkward to use a rifle/bayonet against someone else with a rifle/bayonet than it is to use a freaking knife and just hope they’re so incompetent that can’t kill you. Or even someone using their empty rifle as a club. Added reach, and something that can stop your blade. You can get lucky, but the odds are stacked heavily against the knife.

>8. Chances are the other guy will shoot you, not pull out a knife and duel.

Oh, guaranteed. Bayonet charges *do not* happen anymore, for damn good reason. Doesn’t change the fact that a bayonet is slightly less retarded in a gun fight than a *knife*. You’re stupid either way, just one is ever so barely less stupid.

>9. It’s A LOT EASIER to fight against someone with rifle + bayonet. All you gotta do is step in when they miss a swing and that bayonet is useless.

I honestly don’t know how to reply to this. Why would you SWING a bayonet? Holy shit, I take it back, a guy with a knife is going to gut you like a fish 11 times out of 10 if you got a bayonet. You THRUST! Jab that fucking bayonet into them! You’re right, it’s a knife, because the bayonet is meant to be a tool outside of combat, and knives are EXCELLENT tools, but it’s still meant to be used as a puncture weapon, not a slicing weapon. Whoever trained you in the bayonet failed you, badly. THRUST! Not slice! Not dice! THRUST! Slam that knife point into them until the barrel of your rifle is touching them!

Really though, arguing the price of tea in China. Knife or bayonet, you’re utterly fucked on the modern field of battle.

>10. It’s much better to just wield a knife.

Bullshit. So god damn much bullshit. Take your knife and go stand infront of a fucking bayonet charge and see what happens. I’m not betting on you. You know, unless they’re trained to try and slice you with the bayonet, instead of being trained to kill you with it.

>11. You’re letting your enemy knows you ran out of ammo

The moment you attempt to close with the enemy with a fucking knife, they’re going to know it anyways.

>I have spent extensive time in combat zones and knows literally no one who will attach the bayonet in their wildest dream.

I’m not going to get into a discussion of which of us has more ‘extensive’ time, but I’ll say this. We weren’t even *issued* them. I’d use a bayonet over a knife in a heartbeat, but the chances of needing the damn things are so fucking slim, none of my units even issued them!

This is truly one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever been in. Bayonet is superior than a knife for fighting, by pretty much every metric, but no one is ever going to use a bayonet in combat because it turns out, having lots of bullets and sizeable magazines made them obsolete.

“Because you aren’t the only person to have ever held one or gone through basic training?”

No because I have over 2 years in combat zones, mixed martial arts training, weapons training, squad leader training, fire team leader training, MOUT training, leadership training, combat fitness training, QRF training, and probably a lot more I cannot remember off the top of my head. You don’t even know what ROE is and thinks a bayonet has something to do with it.

“We weren’t even *issued* them. I’d use a bayonet over a knife in a
heartbeat, but the chances of needing the damn things are so fucking
slim, none of my units even issued them!”

Probably because you were not in a combat unit. Every grunt or anyone filling a security billet has to be issued a knife with the rifle, aka bayonet.

“Bayonet is superior than a knife for fighting, by pretty much every metric”

Only a keyboard warrior would say something so stupid especially when I just showed you that the modern bayonet is a knife.

“Weapon…is too long…hahahaha. That’s funny”

Yea, it’s real funny laughing at you. What do you think the M4 is? It’s the same exact thing as an M16 but shorter. I’m guessing you’ve never been trained to clear buildings else you wouldn’t say such blasphemy.

Jonas

>No because I have over 2 years in combat zones, mixed martial arts
training, weapons training, squad leader training, fire team leader
training, MOUT training, leadership training, combat fitness training,
QRF training, and probably a lot more I cannot remember off the top of
my head. You don’t even know what ROE is and thinks a bayonet has
something to do with it.

Um, if someone said they don’t know what ROE is, that was someone else, not me. Next, get over your special snowflake mentality. Your military experience doesn’t make you all that special. You are not the only person in this conversation to go to war.

>Probably because you were not in a combat unit. Every grunt or anyone
filling a security billet has to be issued a knife with the rifle, aka
bayonet.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were a Marine, right? Army here. Different rules in different branches.

>Only a keyboard warrior would say something so stupid especially when I just showed you that the modern bayonet is a knife.

No, a modern bayonet is a knife on the end of your rifle, used to stab someone to death. Otherwise, it’s a fucking knife.

>Yea, it’s real funny laughing at you. What do you think the M4 is? It’s
the same exact thing as an M16 but shorter. I’m guessing you’ve never
been trained to clear buildings else you wouldn’t say such blasphemy.

Oh, no joke there. M-16 is god awful for MOUT when compared to the M4. But we’re not talking about guns, we’re talking about melee weapons meant for closing with the enemy and killing them at a range where you can spit in their eye to distract them if need be. The fact that you think having a bayonet mounted on the end of your rifle is less efficient for killing the enemy than swinging a fucking knife shows me that you’re a fucking idiot. Spear, even a shitty improvised spear which is what a bayonet is, is SO GOD DAMN MUCH better than a knife for combat.

I don’t even know why you’re trying to argue that a knife is a better weapon than a bayonet. You swing a knife, all I’m going to do is stab you to death with my bayonet from outside your reach, and share a laugh at your dumb ass trying to use a knife against a spear.

Jonas

Ex-Army here. I saw a bayonet once in my life in the army, and that was the bayonet training course in basic. Pretty fun though. Got to yell really loudly about blood making the green grass grow and stab things.

How does having no balls have anything to do with race? Why is everything about RACE these days! WTF.

powerwiz

When they stop I will. One side does not own the rights to things being about race.

h4rm0ny

Racism is thinking there are “sides”. If person A and person B are friends and person C is not a friend to either of them, then B and C are not on the same “side” just because they share a skin colour. And that holds for beliefs, allegiances and interests, not just friendship. Eliminating racism isn’t about making sure each group is treated equally. It means not thinking of people as members of a group but as individuals.

powerwiz

Go live in your rainbow world. Racism is not illegal or wrong…its someone’s free choice. Not mine but if someone wants to believe in that its allowed. Your thought police do not exist.

What is illegal is discrimination. I have more guns then hands thats how I eliminate threats to my person. You can go hug them and I will watch you get waxed.

h4rm0ny

Ah, I see. You’re an idiot.

powerwiz

Ah I see your a fool.

Marc Guillot

He’s Indian, and he’s still very bitter to have been so easily colonized by the brittish.

BillBasham

You’d be a fool of a software designer if you didn’t build in a back door.

h4rm0ny

It’s Open Source. OSS isn’t necessarily more secure than proprietary software, but it is a lot harder to subvert.

BillBasham

I know the OS is OSS, but I’m presuming the tracking software isn’t.

If I were writing it, I’d make sure that it couldn’t accurately target anyone wearing my favorite shade of puce…

h4rm0ny

Ah, in that case you might be right. Though I’m not sure anyone should have a favourite shade of puce.

BillBasham

Most of my friends have told me my fashion sense would probably get me shot. This may be my chance to prove them wrong.

jpsaraiva

Well, here in Brazil, the thieves, crackers, and drug smugglers do a “nice” job with a “simple” .38 gun. So, I think the control of the people who will pull the trigger is more important than the “gadgets” within the gun itself…

Brian Thomas

Hence government’s attempt at gun control… i would rather take my chances and maintain the right to self defense knowing that plenty of criminals have no concept or care for following government laws.

Marc Guillot

What’s the point ?, what self-respecting hunter would use it and still claim its preys ?.

It only looks useful to criminals. Good job guns industry, again you made the world a safer place .

RBH

Bogan hunters. Not sure if bogan is a term used outside of Australia.

Marc Guillot

That’s why we have urbandictionary.com :-)

kevinp2

Yes, what self-respecting hunter would ever use a technical device to enable a quick and clean kill of a game animal?

Why use a telescopic sight when iron sights work quite well at up to three hundred yards?

Why use a rifled firearm when smoothbore muskets worked quite at up to 50 yards?

Why use a firearm at all when longbows and arrows are available?

Why use bows and arrows at all when spears are available?

Why use spears at all when you can stalk and kill an animal with a club?

In fact, a true self-respecting hunter should kill his prey with his bare hands and teeth.

/ sarc off

Marc Guillot

You actually don’t do the kill anymore, so go buy some antlers on the store, hung them to the wall and make up a nice story. It will be the same.

So much to consider hunting an sport.

supercrazypete

Many of us do not hunt for sport, we hunt for meat.

h4rm0ny

Whilst his original point about hunters not using this was flawed as kevinp2 showed wonderfully, I don’t think the economics of hunting for meat check out. How can cost of equipment, cost of time, transport, preparation and all that possibly be less than just buying the meat from a shop? There’s a reason mass-production is so popular.

szatkus

Now try to shoot someone with Windows or Mac OS. Linux FTW!

BtotheT

This is yet another to add to the list of how any technologic advance only hastens mankind’s enslavement of nature as well as his fellow man.

If you’re awesome, play possum, stop trying to prove to others you’re bright while bringing about plight.
#SoSaysTheWiseOne

Brian Thomas

When are people going to get over the fact that the world we live in, even naturally, is full of very dangerous things. An average person can drive semi trucks through crowds, you can go on the anarchist cook book and learn how to make a couple thousand pound fertilizer bomb (Timothy McVeigh), you can even practice for a couple months and get good with a sniper rifle. You can’t shoot 1800 yards well? GET CLOSER. Wow that took a lot of thinking. All of the above methods of killing lots of people take much less time, money and expertise than acquiring one of these “Linux rifles” which generally could only kill ONE person at a time. Occam s razor and the path of least resistance render the conversations below illogical and a waste of time. Also have you ever thought that the military/government already posses more sophisticated weaponry and could kill you very easily? The question everyone should be asking themselves is does someone out there have a real reason to kill you (outside of random mass killings which in comparison you are more likely to be killed by lightening than get killed in a mass shooting.) Just saying…